Potential Problems of Libertarianism?

[Vanilluxe]

Since Libertarianism concentrates on individualism instead of collectivism, I have read a book of political science class "American Democracy in Peril" and that the "Tragedy of the Commons" examples are something to be thought about.

For instance, you would like to argue that you can decorate your house whatever way you want, since it is your property after all. The problem with that is that what you do with your property can effect property rates of your community and possibly lower it.

Another example is say you own a private lake, what happens if you pollute your lake and the pollution goes through the soil and out to other water sources that may effect nearby areas?

How would you draw a line between individualism and collectivism?

 

[echebota]

No special solution is needed - it's handled by 1) freedom to privately associate and 2) by property right enforcement.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with certain restrictions applied to you and other owners (like lawn care and houses decoration/color/...) - you are free to buy your property with HOA or form HOA if you and your neighbors want to do so. So you have your "collectivist" environment excplicitelly agreed/signed on by the association members. Privately people are free to associate. It's when you are forced to associate via government violence monopoly - this becomes immoral, you lose your freedom and become slave.

In any case, if actions of your neighbor or anybody damage/pollute your property, you enforce your property right by suing the fella. This resolves your second case when a lake owner is polluting your property.

Unfortunately, today, we don't have freedom and our property rights are not enforced properly. In many cases your property rights are cancelled by government "regulators". For example, if the lake owner has a factory that pollutes your property but complies with the EPA rules you would have troubles suing him. But because the same EPA rules, another factory owner who does not pollute anybody's property would have to go out of business. Why EPA might have such rules - usual human flaws - corruption and stupidity. So you want to avoid state "solutions" here as well.

 

[pcosmar]

For instance, you would like to argue that you can decorate your house whatever way you want, since it is your property after all. The problem with that is that what you do with your property can effect property rates of your community and possibly lower it.

Value? Says who?
I would say that property has intrinsic value.. and is worth what ever the owner and potential buyer say it is.

Artificial and arbitrary "property values" are meaningless.

 

[ninepointfive]

I would say figuring custody and visitation rights for children would be a little more difficult without an enforcement arm of some kind - so I'd definitely be up for something to consider which I haven't thought about yet.

 

[Dr.3D]

The title of the book, "American Democracy in Peril" leads me to believe someone doesn't know the United States isn't supposed to be a democracy.

 

[Czolgosz]

I would say figuring custody and visitation rights for children would be a little more difficult without an enforcement arm of some kind - so I'd definitely be up for something to consider which I haven't thought about yet.

50/50. Anything else encourages bad behavior.

 

[ninepointfive]

50/50. Anything else encourages bad behavior.

I'd agree that the responsibilities aught to be shared equally, which has been my approach so far. However, the courts don't see it this way. Often the "best" interests of the children are considered and that is open to interpretation.

 

[Acala]

With respect to using your property in a way that causes other property values to decline - like building n ugly edifice - the sol;ution is for the other property owners to get togewther to pay you to not build your ugly edifice. If the property owners are not willing to pay enough to prevent the ugly structure from being built, then they really don't care. Using the law to force people to live the way you want them to live is the cheater's way around actually reaching agreement with people. Instead of having a society in which people meet face to face and have a community, we substitute armed agents of government and the point of a gun. Is it really a surprise that it doesn't work well?

As for the pollution question, it is no more acceptable to allow your toxic chemicals to drift onto another's property than it is to throw your garbage onto their property. Both are actionable in common law tort and were for centuries before the EPA.

 

[Dr.3D]

With respect to using your property in a way that causes other property values to decline - like building n ugly edifice - the sol;ution is for the other property owners to get togewther to pay you to not build your ugly edifice. If the property owners are not willing to pay enough to prevent the ugly structure from being built, then they really don't care. Using the law to force people to live the way you want them to live is the cheater's way around actually reaching agreement with people. Instead of having a society in which people meet face to face and have a community, we substitute armed agents of government and the point of a gun. Is it really a surprise that it doesn't work well?

As for the pollution question, it is no more acceptable to allow your toxic chemicals to drift onto another's property than it is to throw your garbage onto their property. Both are actionable in common law tort and were for centuries before the EPA.

That and if someone is causing the property values of others to drop, it probably is causing his property value to drop as well. If he wants to have his property value drop, it's his own business.

I remember a person who wanted to put in a wind turbine and he was told, he would have to have an escrow account established to remove the concrete base, should the person remove the wind turbine and move. I thought to myself, if he leaves the concrete base, it's his own business as it will either decrease the value of his property or perhaps increase it if the next person owning the property needs to put up a wind turbine. In any case, the change in value of his property is his business, not those around him.

 

[Elwar]

Libertarianism is not completely linked to individualism. You can have a collective without government. You could even have equal distribution of goods ala communism if you wanted. As long as everyone wants it.

It is just that libertarianism and individualism go together quite well that they are often associated with each other. And the fact that with a collective, if everyone is not in 100% agreement, then force is required.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Potential Problems of Libertarianism?

Problem #1: People that want to be in chains will find "problems" at a faster rate than you can find solutions.